224 réponses à ce sujet

[Patchwork]

I agree with the basic idea that if a female companion is conventionally attractive it's highly likely she'll be romancable.
IMO that's not sexism it's low regard for the male gamer- "make her hot and the outfit tight".

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The purpose of this is to say Bioware is seeming to imply that unless you are non-conventionally attractive, then you MUST want to have sex with the main character. Samara does, arguably, want to have sex with you, it is just that darn samurai code getting in the way. Every conventionally attractive female at least needs to address the idea of wanting to romance you and get in your pants. 

There are male companions in games who fall into stereotypes of male attractiveness who do not pursue the main character, nor have to say "I would have sex with you if it wasn't for _____." 

Does every conventionally attractive female have to have sex or require a reason not to? If so, then doesn't that possibly seem to indicate that attractive women have to justify not having sex with someone? Possibly being the key word here.

I still don't understand what you are arguing here. Why does this matter? Is it because you believe perceived sexual availability is skewed in favor of female characters over male? Do you want it to be more balanced, in that conventionally attractive male characters also become sexually available to the main character?

I mean... sure, I'd support such an endeavor. But that goes back to what David and Allan already said - there are things they could do better, and they will endeavor to do so in the future.

Actually, I'd prefer the opposite. More females that aren't romanceable and don't need to explain why. 

[Sejborg]

Maria Caliban wrote...

"In general, if a female companion is conventionally attractive, she will be romantically available to the PC."
^ Does anyone disagree with this statement?

EDI disagrees.

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote... *

Does every conventionally attractive female have to have sex or require a reason not to? If so, then doesn't that possibly seem to indicate that attractive women have to justify not having sex with someone? Possibly being the key word here.

* Er... I don't really see it. This may be because I have a more positive view of romances than you do, but I don't see being romanceable as a character flaw at all. Especially since the PC can be so many different kinds of people.

 

See, the ability to play different character types only reinforces my feelings on the issue. If you could only romance a character because you are a Paragon, or you are pro-Mage, or if you were nice to orphans, etc., I could see it being less of a negative thing. But if you click the heart icon or the obvious romance dialogue, then you can sleep with any of these females (assuming you met their gender/sexuality requirements). If you are the worst human being possible, you can still have sex with everyone who can be sexed. Heck, in DA2, if you are the very embodiment of what someone hates, you can have sex with them more easily than being moderate and on the fence about things.

That you can play the role of someone that no person in their right mind would romance, yet continue to romance them, is insane to me. And further gives the sign to me that all romanceable companions have an undeniable urge to romance. And if my suggestion that conventionally attractive females seem to need an excuse to not engage in a romance, would this imply that since you can romance these females despite playing as any type of character, that females need an excuse to not want to be romantically involved with anyone?

I don't disagree with you about adding more personality criteria, but I don't think that should be restricted to female romances alone.

[Volus Warlord]

Sejborg wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

"In general, if a female companion is conventionally attractive, she will be romantically available to the PC."
^ Does anyone disagree with this statement?

EDI disagrees.

EDI is not a female, she's a robot.

[Xilizhra]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

"In general, if a female companion is conventionally attractive, she will be romantically available to the PC."
^ Does anyone disagree with this statement?

EDI disagrees.

EDI is not a female, she's a robot.

EDI seems to actively identify as being female.

[The Hierophant]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

"In general, if a female companion is conventionally attractive, she will be romantically available to the PC."
^ Does anyone disagree with this statement?

EDI disagrees.

EDI is not a female, she's a robot.

lol

[Tootles FTW]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Don't leave out Garrus. He is male. Liara, Morinth and Samara are not female - they are mono gendered. If having boobs is all it takes to be female, then there is a whole different discussion that needs to be had.

And this isn't a comparison of the number male romances to female - it is the implication that every "droolable" female in Bioware games is also sexable. You don't think that sends a mixed, less-than-progressive message?

For the **** of gawd, I've tried to ignore it but you keep repeating it.  MONO means one.  One gender, not no gender.  That one gender is female.  For ****s sake.  Honestly, it's right there in the ME codex, I promise you ("An all female race").

[Enigmatick]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

"In general, if a female companion is conventionally attractive, she will be romantically available to the PC."
^ Does anyone disagree with this statement?

EDI disagrees.

EDI is not a female, she's a robot.

Time for some derailment, eh? 

[Nerdage]

Volus Warlord wrote...

EDI is not a female, she's a robot.

She's a fembot, which, to be fair, is one up from the femputer she was..

[Sejborg]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

"In general, if a female companion is conventionally attractive, she will be romantically available to the PC."
^ Does anyone disagree with this statement?

EDI disagrees.

EDI is not a female, she's a robot.

A female robot it seems. She looks pretty female to me at least.

Would you say Merrill isn't a female, she's an elf?

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote... 

Does every conventionally attractive female have to have sex or require a reason not to? If so, then doesn't that possibly seem to indicate that attractive women have to justify not having sex with someone? Possibly being the key word here.

Er... I don't really see it. This may be because I have a more positive view of romances than you do, but I don't see being romanceable as a character flaw at all. Especially since the PC can be so many different kinds of people.

 

See, the ability to play different character types only reinforces my feelings on the issue. If you could only romance a character because you are a Paragon, or you are pro-Mage, or if you were nice to orphans, etc., I could see it being less of a negative thing. But if you click the heart icon or the obvious romance dialogue, then you can sleep with any of these females (assuming you met their gender/sexuality requirements). If you are the worst human being possible, you can still have sex with everyone who can be sexed. Heck, in DA2, if you are the very embodiment of what someone hates, you can have sex with them more easily than being moderate and on the fence about things. 

That you can play the role of someone that no person in their right mind would romance, yet continue to romance them, is insane to me. And further gives the sign to me that all romanceable companions have an undeniable urge to romance. And if my suggestion that conventionally attractive females seem to need an excuse to not engage in a romance, would this imply that since you can romance these females despite playing as any type of character, that females need an excuse to not want to be romantically involved with anyone?

I don't disagree with you about adding more personality criteria, but I don't think that should be restricted to female romances alone.

And I would wholeheartedly endorse that as well. 

I would not want to place arbitrary inclusions/requirements for female romances. 

But I would also like to see people here on the BSN posting threads in here asking how the sexy Mage female companion can be romances and the response be "she can't be." And have the female character not give some tragic or deep reason why... she's just not into you, or isn't looking for a relationship right now, or any number of oher reasons, none of which she has to explain to anyone.

I'd like her to be able to say "no" and not have to justify that. And, again, I'm kind of surprised that I'm getting so much blowback from the BSN about it, and about who is up in arms about the concept. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 mars 2013 - 07:57 .

[Enigmatick]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


And I would wholeheartedly endorse that as well. 

I would not want to place arbitrary inclusions/requirements for female romances. 

But I would also like to see people here on the BSN posting threads in here asking how the sexy Mage female companion can be romances and the response be "she can't be." And have the female character not give some tragic or deep reason why... she's just not into you, or isn't looking for a relationship right now, or any number of oher reasons, none of which she has to explain to anyone.

I'd like her to be able to say "no" and not have to justify that. And, again, I'm kind of surprised that I'm getting so much blowback from the BSN about it, and about who is up in arms about the concept. 

Because you're saying they haven't done it before and people feel that they have.  Kasumi.

[Fast Jimmy]

Fine, I'll put EDI to rest.

Regardless of if she is a robot, a ship, or a female, she has a plot roadblock preventing her from romancing Shepherd (Joker). So she is disqualified.

[Mykel54]

It´s sad how bioware games are becoming famous for their fantasy romances of all shapes and colours. I hope we get some interviews about game mechanics or story instead, bioware used to be renowned for making great crpg games, not for making fantasy romantic simulators.

[Volus Warlord]

Sejborg wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

"In general, if a female companion is conventionally attractive, she will be romantically available to the PC."
^ Does anyone disagree with this statement?

EDI disagrees.

EDI is not a female, she's a robot.

A female robot it seems. She looks pretty female to me at least.

Would you say Merrill isn't a female, she's an elf?

Yup. Just as asari aren't female. But that is a different story.

[Fast Jimmy]

Enigmatick wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...


And I would wholeheartedly endorse that as well. 

I would not want to place arbitrary inclusions/requirements for female romances. 

But I would also like to see people here on the BSN posting threads in here asking how the sexy Mage female companion can be romances and the response be "she can't be." And have the female character not give some tragic or deep reason why... she's just not into you, or isn't looking for a relationship right now, or any number of oher reasons, none of which she has to explain to anyone.

I'd like her to be able to say "no" and not have to justify that. And, again, I'm kind of surprised that I'm getting so much blowback from the BSN about it, and about who is up in arms about the concept. 

Because you're saying they haven't done it before and people feel that they have.  Kasumi.

I really wish people would read this whole thread instead of just hopping in.

DLC and expansion characters are disqualified, because Bioware has never given us a romanceable one, male, female or golem. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 mars 2013 - 08:01 .

[Maria Caliban]

Sejborg wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

"In general, if a female companion is conventionally attractive, she will be romantically available to the PC."
^ Does anyone disagree with this statement?

EDI disagrees.

Why does she disagree?

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I really wish people would read this whole thread instead of just hopping in.

DLC and expansion characters are disqualified, because Bioware has never given us a romanceable one, male, female or golem. 

Sebastion was a romancable DLC character.

People shouldn't have to read the entire thread. You gave criteria on page one. That you keep on adding qualifiers isn't anyone's fault but your own.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 28 mars 2013 - 08:03 .

[Xilizhra]

I'd like her to be able to say "no" and not have to justify that. And, again, I'm kind of surprised that I'm getting so much blowback from the BSN about it, and about who is up in arms about the concept.

Because there are a few shades of a lack of desire for romance/sex as being somehow superior in your post, because of your odd standards for excluding various other female companions from your criteria, and because in my case, I'm both female and enjoy romancing female companions.

DLC and expansion characters are disqualified, because Bioware has never given us a romanceable one, male, female or golem.

So of course, you'll remove Sebastian from your male list, then?

Modifié par Xilizhra, 28 mars 2013 - 08:02 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'd like her to be able to say "no" and not have to justify that. And, again, I'm kind of surprised that I'm getting so much blowback from the BSN about it, and about who is up in arms about the concept.

Because there are a few shades of a lack of desire for romance/sex as being somehow superior in your post, because of your odd standards for excluding various other female companions from your criteria, and because in my case, I'm both female and enjoy romancing female companions.

DLC and expansion characters are disqualified, because Bioware has never given us a romanceable one, male, female or golem.

So of course, you'll remove Sebastian from your male list, then? 

Sure.

[n7stormrunner]

.... why are you surprised? whatever or not it wrong, sexist, or anything else you can come up with people want to romance attractive/sexy characters. it is one of those thing that just is. any, even theoretically wanting to remove or change it, is not going to be met badly in fact it is surprising that the reaction is this nice.

[Sejborg]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Sejborg wrote...
A female robot it seems. She looks pretty female to me at least.

Would you say Merrill isn't a female, she's an elf?

Yup. Just as asari aren't female. But that is a different story.

According to the ME lore asari is an all female race. 

[Wulfram]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fine, I'll put EDI to rest.

Regardless of if she is a robot, a ship, or a female, she has a plot roadblock preventing her from romancing Shepherd (Joker). So she is disqualified.

Varric is disqualified.  He has Bianca

[Xilizhra]

Wulfram wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Fine, I'll put EDI to rest.

Regardless of if she is a robot, a ship, or a female, she has a plot roadblock preventing her from romancing Shepherd (Joker). So she is disqualified.

Varric is disqualified.  He has Bianca

Hm, true. So between that, Sten's own alien samurai code, Sebastian being a DLC, Mordin being old...

[Sejborg]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

"In general, if a female companion is conventionally attractive, she will be romantically available to the PC."
^ Does anyone disagree with this statement?

EDI disagrees.

Why does she disagree?

She is conventionally attractive but is not romantically available to the pc, or shows interest in Shepard in a romantically way. She even asks Shepard for advice on how to score with Joker.